This book's been on my to-do list for ages. Seen it referred in a bunch of media over the years - Neil Gaiman's Sandman, the Simpsons, Deus Ex, etc. Heard it's a very unique, very influencial thriller novel from 1908 that deals with Anarchists... but finally got around to reading it.
I highly recommend reading it IRONICALLY. Having finished, I do think it's worth reading, with a few BIG disclaimers on how to approach. I don't think this book will be "for everyone."
I'll post my personal takeaways for anyone that, you know, doesn't want to read an 112-year old novel (that ultimately equates Anarchism with Nilism.) I don't think the information I took from this read is what the author probably intended, but it was fascinating insight nevertheless.
How to read:
- Picture the main character Gabriel Syme as Dinesh D'Souza/Ben Shapiro/Your preferred right-wing dickhead of choice. Picture Sunday as the "President of Antifa."
- The first 75% of this book will make you mad. The last 25% will make you think WTF. All throughout the book, you'll be thinking "why are these characters such weird nerds"?
- This is a novel from 1908. It's 112 years old. The diction is weird. You get used to it, but it's still weird. You'll probably need to Google some of the references.
- There's a whole bunch of twists and turns. Some of the plot twists will probably make you mad too.
My takeaways:
"Conservatives have 1 joke" is a meme, but, wow, it's crazy how Anarchists/Marxists have basically been getting stuck with the same stereotypes for over a century. I found it really interesting that these stereotypes pre-date actual Socialist governments being an existing thing.
- Anarchists hate everyone and want to destroy the world
- There's a 'silent majority' of conservatives
- Materialists are Nilists who don't believe in morality
- Anarchists are just a bunch of intellectuals who don't really represent working people
...and this book was written back when Russia had a Tsar, lol.
"There's a secret cabal of elites who want to overthrow the world order" gives crazy QAnon vibes.
I don't think this novel is REALLY about Anarchy... its about being against Nilism and puts forth that Idealism is the solution. It's a fascinating look at how religion is used to justify the status quo (before it morphed into the mostrosity it has today).
EDIT: Read up a bit more on the author and he wrote this book while he was going from an artsy neo-pagan phase into a Roman Catholic phase. He became very devout in years following this book, wrote theology, and influenced CS Lewis. HG Wells was a big fan.
Action scenes are very well written and very "hollywood," despite, uh, movies not really existing at this time.
I remember reading this book ~8 years ago, back when I was still a Christian and didn't have a materialist analysis or much understanding of history. At the time I kind of breezed past the stuff about anarchists and cabals and thought it was just a way to set up the main plot of the story. Chesterton did consider himself a bit of a humorist, and I was reading the novel anticipating it being a lighter-hearted version of Sherlock Holmes (which is what I do remember it as today).
Now that I'm more familiar with reactionary thinking I wonder how it holds up (apparently not super well?), and if he was more of a nut job than I thought. I mean, he was a Catholic.
It's definitely interesting to read this through a Marxist lens. Sometimes I wonder how much of the negative stereotypes associated with Anarchists/Socialists originated from Cold War propaganda, so this book was really fascinating to me because it shows a good number of these tropes pre-date the Cold War and even "actually existing socialism". It pretty clearly frames the world as a battle between Materialism and Idealism (with a clear preference to Idealism).
Kind of a weird analogy, but reading this kind of reminded me of examining a Terminator (from the Terminator movies). Media today often portrays Capitalism as a terminator with its "skin on." You know, you'd look at it and think it's human at first glance. It seems natural enough. However, if you stop to look at it long enough - and with the right set of eyes - you'd eventually notice some things that were "off" and that something's not quite right. It's refined, obscured, and hidden under years of abstraction. Reading an old book like this is like examining a Terminator that's missing some skin cover. You can tell at first glance that it's not thinking not quite right... and it even gives you a bit of a peek "under the hood" how its different moving pieces operate.
But you're right, it's much more in the vein of Sherlock Homes than political theory! I found it unintentionally hilarious that a big plot point are the protagonists trying to save both the Tsar and president of France from being blown up by Anarchists and how there's zero reflection on why Anarchists are unhappy and what they want (other than they're a bunch of mustache-twirling villains who want to destroy the world). Lots of bourgeoisie dining out montages. And it simultaneously frames Anarchists as being supremely immoral... while also going to great lengths to show that they're bound by honor to keep secrets when they pinky-swear.